FELLOWS AND LIFE MEMBERS 



OF THE 



ASSOCIATION. 



The constitution of the Association provides that "Members who show, 
by published work, special aptitude tor historical investigation, may become 
Fellows. Thirteen Fellows shall be elected by the Association when first 
organized, and the body thus created may thereafter elect additional Fellows 
on the nomination of the Executive Council. The number of Fellows shall 
never exceed fifty." 

The present list of Fellows is as follows: 



Babkkb, Mr. Eugene C. 
Batts, Prop. R. L. 
BoLTOK, Dr. Herbert Eugene. 
Casis, Miss Lilia M. 
Cooper, President O. H. 
CoopwooD, Judge Bethel. 
Cox, Mr. I. J. 
Estill, Proe. H. L. 
FuLMORE, Judge Z. T. 
Gaines, Judge R. R. 
Garrison, Prof. George P. 
Houston, Prof. D. F. 
Kbnney, Capt. M. M. 
Kleberg, Rudolph, Jr. 



Lemmon, Prof. Leonard. 
LooscAN, Mrs. Adele B. 
Lubbock, Ex-Gov. F. R. 
McCaleb, Dr. W. F. 
Pennybacker, Mrs. Percy V. 
Raines, Judge C. W. 
Reagan, Judge John H. 
Shepard, Judge Seth. 
Sinks, Mrs. Julia Lee. 
Smith, Mr. W. Roy. 
TowNES, Judge John C. 
Williams, Judge O. W. 
WooTEN, Hon. Dudley G. 



The constitution provides also that "Such benefactors of the Association 
as shall pay into its treasury at any one time tlie sum of fifty dollars, or 
sh?.ll present to the Association an equivalent in books, MSS., or other 
acceptable matter, siiall be classed as Life Members. 

The Life Members at present are: 

Brackknridge, Hon. Geo. W. R. G. West, Esq. 
Mrs. I«Jellie Stedman Cox. 



1/ 



THE QUARTERLY 

OF THE 

TBXAS STATK HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

Vol. VI. OCTOBER, 1902. No. 2. 



The publication committee and the editor disclaim ra^ponsibility for viewH expressed by 
contributors to the Quarterly. 



THE SOUTHWEST BOUNDARY OF TEXAS. 
V. J. cox. 

As no State of the American Union can compare with Texas in 
extent of territory, so no State has greater historical interest and im- 
portance attached to its boundaries. From the time when La Salle 
made his unfortunate landing upon its coast until the Supreme 
Court made its recent decision concerning Greer coiinty, the limits 
of Texas have been unsettled. Disputes arising from this fact have 
been the cause of costly entradas, of interminable wrangling by col- 
onial officials, of long and fruitless diplomatic correspondence ter- 
minating in unsatisfactory compromise, and of hostile expeditions 
ending in overwhelming defeat or inglorious victory. The intensity 
of feeling aroused by these disputes has threatened to disrupt the 
Union itself, and their solution has prefigured the destiny of the 
whole continent. 

The most interesting and important of the boundaries of Texas 
is that on the southwest. ]N either the eastern, the scene of a cen- 
tury's wrangle between Spanish and French, of the "neutral 
ground" agreement of 1806, and of the unsatisfactory treaty of 
1819; nor the far northwestern, linked with memories of the ill- 
fated Santa Fe expedition and of the stirring days of the compro- 
mise of 1850, can compare with it in the number and variety of 
questions involved in their settlement. A direct, although possibly 



82 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

secondary, cause of the only war waged by the American people for 
territorial aggrandizement/ it has marked for more than half a 
century the advance line of Anglo-Saxon domination upon this con- 
tinent. In view of its past importance and of its present signifi- 
cance, a survey of its development, from a somewhat different 
standpoint than the usual one, may be not only admissible, but prof- 
itable. 

For this survey, it must be acknowledged that the documents are 
neither so numerous nor so weighty as would be desirable; nor is 
the reason for this hard to discover. Previous to the revolt of 
Mexico from Spain the frontier settlements were so widely sepa- 
rated from each other that it was not necessary to limit strictly the 
boundaries of the provinces in which they were established. Never- 
theless, there was a sort of delimitation in every case, and it is the 
aim of the writer to trace briefly this delimitation, in order to show 
its bearing upon subsequent boundary claims. 

By the end of the seventeenth century the northeastern provinces 
of Nueva Espaiia were Kuevo Mexico, ISTueva Yizca^-a (Chihuahua), 
Nueva Estremadura (Coahuila), and Nuevo Keino de Leon. Texas 
had been visited and portions of it traversed by exploring parties 
during the two previous centuries; and more recently, during the 
closing years of the seventeenth centuiy, it had been the scene of 
three entradas, which mark the true beginning of Texas history. 
But a quarter century was to elapse before the territory should be 
raised to the dignity of a compound name and of a separate pro- 
vincial government. A half century was to pass, before the last 
of the provinces bordering on Texas, Nuevo Santander (Tamauli- 
pas), was to be pacified and organized. The four provinces first 
named at that time constituted the frontier buffer provinces, oppos- 
ing the tribes of savages then wandering at will over the territory 
of Nuevo Santander and Texas. 

Of the rivers destined to play an important part in the ultimate 
settlement of the boundaries of these provinces, the most important 
is the Eio Grande. This river rises in Colorado and flows south- 
ward through New Mexico, where it bore, in the days when the 

^With this statement and others of similar drift in this article the 
reader should compare the argument of Judge Fulmore in The Annex- 
ation of Texas and the Mexican War, The Quarterly, V 28-48. — Editor 
Quarterly. 



The Southwest Boundary of Texas. 83 

Spanish first became familiar with it, the name of "Kio del Norte." 
In its middle course it was called the "Eio Grande"' ; while further 
towards its mouth, where it flowed through the country inhabited 
wholly by wild Indians {Indios hravos), it took the name of "^\o 
Bravo," or sometimes, doubtless from color of its water, that of 
"Eio Turbio."^ The second of these rivers in importance is the 
ISTueces, crossed and named in the entrada of General Alonzo de 
Leon in 1689.- Two years later, at the time of the entrada of 
Domingo Teran, the name of the river was changed to San Diego. ^ 
By the time of Eamon's expedition, in 1716, the name of Eio de las 
Nneces* had been restored, and it remained thenceforth the designa- 
tion of the stream. The third most important river, the Medina, 
was also named during the expedition of Alonzo de Leon. The day 
before the arrival of his command at the Nueces, he makes mention 
of an "Arte de Navegar," which was written by "el Maestro Me- 
dina."^ Whether there was any connection between the name of 
the master navigator and that of the river is uncertain ; but, at any 
rate, the river was named during this expedition. Of the three, the 
Medina is the smallest, and yet for more than a century it was des- 
ignated as the official boundary between Texas and Coahuila, while 
the one next in importance, the Nueces, was to answer the same pur- 
pose for the provinces of Nuevo Santander and Texas. The largest 
of the three, the Eio Grande, p^ays no part in the determination of 
boundaries, so long as Spanish or Mexican authorities control the 
limits of the provinces concerned. To one familiar with the natural 
advantages of the Eio Grande as a boundary, it must seem strange 
that it was not at once selected as the divisional line between Texas 
and its southern neighbors. To this principle of the selection of 
natural delimitations, two things were opposed: first, the Spanish 
method of limiting frontier provinces; and, second, the conquest 
and pacification of Nuevo Santander, in 1748, by General Jose 

^Altamira, Testimonio de un Parecer, in Yoakum's History of Texas, I 
385. Discovery of the Bay of Espiritu Santo, The Quarterly, II 254. 

^Derrotero de Alonzo de Leon, 3 via., in Coleccion de Memorias dc 
Nueva Espana, 27 

'Teran, Descripcion y Diaria Demarcacion, etc., 26 vta., ibid. 
*Ynforme de Domingo Ramon, 144, ibid. 

^See note 2. Also No. 28088. Bulletin Trimestriel, No. 27, Juin-Juillet 
1901. Librarie Ch. Chadenat, Paris. 



84 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

Eseandon. The former affected the boundary with Coahuila, and 
the latter that with the newly pacified province. 

When thase new provinces were formed from territory formerly 
occupied by Indians, it seems to have been the policy of the author- 
ities of Nueva Espana to limit in a general way the boundaries of 
each with it^ neighbors, on the south, west, and east, so far as it 
had neighbors, while on the north they indicated no more defi- 
nite confines than those afforded by the "many barbarous na- 
tions," or the "gentile Indians."'^ Such we may conceive to have 
been the early method of designating the northern boundaries of 
Nueva Vizcaya and Nueva Estremadura. From the former prov- 
ince the line of growth to the north led by way of the Eio Grande 
valley. From the latter the march of Spanish civilization moved 
across the Eio Grande, the Nueces, the Medina, and so on towards 
the east. As the province of Nueva Vizaya became too extended 
for a single government, a new one, Nuevo Mexico, was formed; 
and, likewise, with the extension of Coahuila, Texas assumed the 
dignity of a separate province under military rule. The question 
(.f the southern boundary of each of these new provinces was easily 
determined. The southernmost garrison of Nuevo Mexico was that 
of the royal presidio of the Pass (El Paso). This was immediately 
upon the Eio Grande del Norte; therefore, that river, as it begins 
to turn towards the east at that point, should constitute the bound- 
ary between Nuevo Mexico and Nueva Vizcaya. For the time it 
would be unnecessary to define the boundaries at any other point, 
because the only settlements were in the Eio Grande valley, around 
the rude civilization of which stretched a desert, not merely of sand, 
but also of savagery. 

The settlement of the new province of Texas or Nuevas Fil- 
ipinas^ nearest the City of Mexico was the presidio of San Antonio 

^The former is the designation for the northern limit of Texas, in Memo- 
rias de Nueva Espana, 28 162 vta., and the latter for the western, north- 
ern, and eastern of Nuevo Mexi<'o, in Altamira's Testimonio de un Parecer. 
See Yoakum, I 385. 

■The double name appears February 9, 1716, in Relacion del Sargento 
Mayor Don Martin de Alarcon, Memorias de Nueva Espana. 27 444 vta. 
In Representacion hecha por los R. R. Pads Misioneros, July 22, 1716, 
Memorias de Nueva Espana, 27 163 vta., occurs this expression, "We have 
conceived, most excellent Sir, great hopes that this pro^^nce will be a New 
Philippine (Nueva Filipina. )." 



The Southwest Boundary of Texas. 85 

de Bexar, founded in 1718/ as a protection to the mission on the 
San Antonio river. The small garrison at this point could control, 
in a fairly satisfactory manner, the country as far west as the next 
important natural dividing line, the Medina river. This, accord- 
ingly, would be taken as the southwest boundary of the new prov- 
ince. By 1700 Coahuila had extended her military posts near to 
the right bank of the Eio Grande, -where the presidio of San Juan 
Bautista was established. A few years later her missions were also 
established upon the left bank.^ Thus both banks of the Eio 
Grande belonged to Coahuila by right of actual settlement, and the 
unoccupied territory between the Eio Grande and the Medina sepms 
to have been transferred to her bodily, as being the older province. 
The Medina is distinctly called the boundary line between the two 
provinces, April 4, 1721, by the Marques de Aguayo. Very likely 
it had been so designated previous to his journey, or this would not 
have been stated so simply, without some word of explanation; as, 
to quote his words, "entering the province of the Texas, Nuevas 
Filipinas, which the river Medina divides from the province of 
Coahuila, Nueva Estremadura."^ Such a statement from the man 
who was governor of both provinces may be regarded as both dis- 
interested and official. In a similar manner, doubtless by right of 
previous independent organization, Nueva Vizcaya and Nuevo 
Mexico extended their territory far east of the Eio Grande, and for 
more than a century and a quarter their claims were recognized by 
the Spanish authorities of Texas, as well as those of the other im- 
mediate provinces and of the general government. Thus Texas 
was to remain shut away from the upper Eio Grande, until a force 
stronger than documentary evidence should enter into the solution 
of the question. 

The fact has been mentioned that the Medina was called the 

^Talamantes, Historia . . . . de Texas hasta el ano de 1730, Par. 22. Histo- 
ria 43, Archivo General. 

-This was the case of Mision de San Francisco Solano, afterwards trans- 
ferred to the San Antonio and renamed Mision de San Antonio de Valero. 
Talamantes, Par. 22. Portilla: Apuntes jmra la HistoHa Antigua de 
Coahuila y Texas, 292 et seq. 

^Diario del Viaje de Marques de San Miguel de Agum/o in Memorias de 
Nueva Espana, 28 11. It is interesting to note how the simpler native 
name of the province has survived in each of these two cases, as well as 
in most of the others. 



86 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

boundary between Texas and Coahuila by the Marques de Aguayo 
in the account of bis expedition in 1721. Other writers bear sim- 
iJar testimony during this early period. The evidence they present 
is of tw^o kinds; that the Medina is the boundary between the two 
provinces in question, and that the Eio Grande flows through terri- 
tory wholly within other provinces than Texas. In speaking of the 
province of Coahuila, the Marques de Altamira says,^ "Next to 
Nuevo Eeino de Leon conies the province and subject people \gov- 
emacion'] of Coahuila or Nueva Estremadura, in length from south 
io north more than a hundred and twenty leagues, to the river of 
Medina, where begins the adjacent last province and subject peo- 
ple [govei-nacio7i] of ours of Texas or Nuevas Filipinas." In 
speaking of the territory between the Eio Grande and the San An- 
tonio, he says,^ "From the said presidio of San Juan Bautista of 
the Eio Grande to that of San Antonio de Bejar or Valero (which 
latter is six leagues within the province of Texas), there intervene 
another seventy leagues without a single settlement in all their cir- 
cumference." The distance from the Medina to the presidio of San 
Antonio is uniformly given as six leagues; thus it will be observed 
that sixty-four leagues, or a full half of the length of Coahuila, lay 
on the left side of the Eio Grande. Again, in describing Texas it- 
self, he says,^ "From the said river of Medina at which begins the 
said province of Texas to the presidio de los Adays at which it ends, 
its length from south to north is about two hundred and forty 
leagues, and its width from the west to the Mexican Gulf about 
eighty." Thus he makes tliree different statements about the 
boundary of Texas and in all of them the Medina is expressly men- 
tioned. 

In describing the course of the Eio Grande he shows with equal 
clearness that no part of it touches territory belonging to Texas. 
His description of the course of the river is interesting.* "From 
this province of Nuevo Mexico descends the river named del Norte, 
which, coming directly towards the south, runs close to the said 
capital of Santa Fe, and to the royal presidio of the Pass, which 

^Testimonio de un Parecer, Yoakum, I 384. 

'Ibid., 387. 

'Ibid., .389. 

nbid., 385. 



The Southwest Boundary of Texas. 87 

has been mentioned. Afterwards it turns to the east and cuts off a 
portion of Nueva Vizcaya, whence it receives the Concho river. It 
traverses then the middle portion of the province of Coahuila, pass- 
ing three leagues beyond its presidio of San Juan Bautista, called 
from it that of the Rio Grande/ * * * it continues still to the 
east, crossing twenty leagues beyond the frontier of the said Nuevo 
Eeino, and from its presidio of Serralvo, it discharges its waters 
with the name of Eio Bravo, through lands of gentile Indians un- 
known to us." This description was written four years before the 
pacification of Nuevo Santander began. It will be observed that 
the Eio Grande, under its various names, is represented as passing 
through Nuevo Mexico, Nueva Vizcaya, and Coahuila, while it is 
twenty leagues distant from the nearest presidio of Nuevo Leon, the 
smallest of these provinces, with a length of one hundred leagues 
and a width of about twenty. This fact is important in determin- 
ing the later boundaries of this province, after the conquests of 
Escandon in Nuevo Santander. Nuevo Leon, today, remains shut 
off from the Eio Grande by its neighbors, Coahuila and Tamauli- 
pas, while Texas, then in the same condition, has acquired nearly 
all of the left bank of that river, and has received more than an 
equitable compensation for the remainder. 

The authorities already quoted seem of sufficient official weight 
to form the basis for a tolerably certain opinion ; but, in addition, 
it is possible to quote the testimony of the cosmographer of the 
Kingdom of New Spain. His utterances concerning the bound- 
aries of Texas and Coahuila are equally as definite as those above 
quoted. "This extensive country [Texas] ^ has its beginning from 
the river of Medina, which is the dividing line between the province 
of Coahuila and the former, which extends between the north and 
east, in the direction of northeast, for more than two himdred and 
twenty leagues in length, and more than seventy in width." * * * 
Nueva Estremadura follows to the north-northwest of Nuevo Eeino 

'See note 2, p. 86. 

-D. Joseph Antonio de Villa Sefior y Sanchez, Theatro Americano, II 
320. The author is described as "Contador General de la Real Contaduria 
de Azogues, y Cosmographo de este Reyno," and the work was written by 
order of the viceroy, Fuen-Clara. The first volume appeared in 1746, and 
the second two years later. (See Cavo, Tres Siglos de Mexico.) 



88 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

de Leon, and its boundaries run to the river of Medina, which is its 
terminus for the north."^ 

By comparing the dimensions of Texas, as given above, with 
thost previously given for Coahuila and Nuevo Leon, it will be seen 
that they are far broader. Nueva Vizcaya at the same time had a 
length of about one hundred and eighty leagues, while the distance 
from the royal presidio of El Paso to Santa Fe allowed a length of 
about one hundred and thirty leagues only for New Mexico,^ the 
scattered settlements of which were hemmed in by unsubdued In- 
dians. Although the extensive province of Texas at that time con- 
tained only four widely scattered settlements,^ all writers agree in 
stating that its resources were sufficient to maintain a vast popu- 
lation. So it follows that, even if restricted to the Medina as its 
western boundary, it possessed more territory, and territory of a 
greater value, tJian any of its neighbors. 

From the above excerpts it will be seen that three Spanish offi- 
cials, high in authority, had in the course of twenty-five years pre- 
vious to 1748, made separate statements concerning the southwest 
boundary of Texas, and that all had concurred in placing it at the 
Medina. It seems only reasonable to say that we are justified in 
assuming that this river was the officially recognized boundaiy, at 
that time, between Texas and Coahuila, and that this delimitation 
was commonly accepted by the people of the two provinces.* It 
remains only to fix the boundaries of Texas below the province of 
Coahuila. This question was settled by the pacification of the sav- 
age Indians of the coast, by General Jose Escandon, between the 
years 1748 and 1755. Texas acquired a new neighbor, Kuevo San- 
tander; a new limit in that quarter, the ISTueces; and her western 
boundary, at least for a Spanish province, may be regarded as fairly 
complete. 

The junta general of war and finance had authorized Escandon 
to conquer "a hundred leagues or more from south to north and 
about seventy or eighty from east to west on the coast of the Mexi- 

^Theatro Americano, II 306. 

'Altamira, Yoakum, I 384. 

"Theatro Americano, II 320. 

^Yoakum. I 77, says, "At this period the Medina seems to be well under- 
stood as the western limit of Texas." 



Tlie Southwest Boundary of Texas. 89 

can Gulf, occupied by the many barbarous, gentile, and apostate 
nations.'' Possibly these dimensions were not to be closely adhered 
to, and, indeed, it is doubtful if the government authorities in 
Mexico knew precisely what territory the above distances would 
include. In order to make the matter more certain they defined the 
limits of the new province by means of those already existing. On 
the north the territory to be conquered by Escandon was to be lim- 
ited "by the kingdom of the aforesaid government of Coahuila and 
the beginning of the province of Texas."^ 

In December, 1748, Escandon left Queretaro to acco7nplish his 
mission, with a force of seven hundred and fifty, afterwards in- 
creased to twenty-five hundred by levies from various parts of 
Nueva Espana, including JSTuevo Leon and Coahuila. His expedi- 
tion was not wholly warlike, for he was to found missions and vil- 
lages, wherever the situation or the people promised success to the 
venture. Before starting out he had selected such places as he could 
from the data in his possession, and had marked them on a map. 
This map was approved by the authorities who had authorized his 
expedition, and it worth while to note that a place for a settlement 
had been designated on the left bank of both the Nueces and the 
San Antonio. Thus it was clearly implied that in order to extend 
his territory to the confines of Texas, he must conquer the terri- 
tory beyond the Eio Grande.^ 

A very important reason for the extension of Escandon's con- 
quests beyond the Eio Grande was the fact that a strip of territory 
about two hundred leagues wide, through which the river ran, was 
the favorite hunting ground of the Apaches and Lipans, forming 
"a pouch (holsa) of land between New Mexico, Texas, and Coa- 
huila"^ and extending nearly to the mouth of the Eio Grande. The 
authorities of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila either could not subdue 
these savages, or else had not taken the trouble to do so. Escan- 
don's expedition offered a fitting opportunity to accomplish this 
necessary preliminary to the settlement of this vast region. In his 
first plan for the conquest of Nuevo Santander, he had proposed 

^Prieto, Historia, Geografica y Estadistica del Estado de Tamaulipas, 
40. The author says that the above extracts were taken from Coleccidn 
de Memorias de 'Nueva Espana, 29. 

'Ibid., 135 note. 

'Carta of Ximenes, Coleccidn de Memorias de Nueva Espafia, 28 199. 



90 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

the founding of fourteen settlements, three of which were to be 
beyond the Eio Grande. The royal audiencia of the City of Mexico 
approved of his plans, amplified his powers, and gave him permis- 
sion to found the new settlements.^ Already, in 1749, he had sent 
a detachment of his forces from Coahuila across the Rio Bravo at 
San Juan Bautista, with orders to proceed to the mouth of the 
Nueces and the bay of Espiritu Santo. He also gave orders to 
Captain Basterra, then in command of the troops at that point, to 
proceed to form a settlement at a suitable place on the left bank 
of the Nueces.' He also proposed to remove the presidio from the 
bay of Espiritu Santo near to Camargo, where it would be more 
useful against the warlike Lipans and Apaches. By the next year, 
however, Escandon learned that the place selected on the Nueces 
was not suitable for a settlement, and after eight months of hard- 
ships, the prospective settlers were located below the Rio Bravo, 
where they formed the villa of Soto la Marina.^ 

In sending this expedition beyond the Rio Grande, Escandon 
had, in a measure, exercised control over the territory crossed, and 
with the approval of the Mexican authorities, nlthough not to the 
extent of actual settlement. The latter was accomplished indi- 
rectly by him through private enterprise. In 1750 there was estab- 
lished, on the left bank of the Rio Grande, a hacienda of consid- 
erable importance, called Dolores. The founder of this, Don Jose 
Vasquez Borrego, on learning of Escandon's conquests and that his 
settlement was -within the limits assigned the latter, presented him- 
self to that leader in the villa Santander and offered his co-opera- 
tion in subduing the territory on the far side of the Bravo. Escan- 
don accepted his offer, appointed him captain and administrator of 
that portion of the colony, and gave him fifty sitios of land for 
pasturage. Four years later the settlement, Dolores, had a popu- 
lation of a hundred and twenty-five.* 

Towards the end of 1754, another liaccndado of Coahuila, Don 
Tomas Sanchez by name, crossed the Bravo and established himself 
about ten leagues to the north of Dolores. Sanchez albO proposed 

'Prieto, 160, 161. 
=Tbid., 135. 
'Ibid., 167. 
^Ibid., 175. 



Tlie Southwest Boundary of Texas. 91 

to Escandon to found a new pueblo on the left bank of that river, 
in a place he had selected. Escandon agreed to this, but as he had 
previously attempted a settlement on the Nueces, he wished San- 
chez first to undertake one there. Sanchez visited the Nueces, but 
returning reported to Borrego, at Dolores, that he could not find a 
suitable place for a settlement, and that unless he could form his 
settlement on the Bravo, he should desist entirely from the enter- 
prise. Borrego, to whom Escandon had left the ultimate decision, 
then permitted Sanchez to form his settlement in the desired local- 
ity. Thus, May 15, 1755. was founded the villa of jjaredo, ten 
leagues from Dolores.^ 

'In this manner was accomplished the pacification and settlement 
of the colony of Nuevo Santander. In 1755 Escandon retired to 
Queretaro, there to make out a statistical report of all that he had 
done and of the places founded by him.^ By his vigorous work he 
had extended his conquests, not only along the coast of the gulf of 
Mexico, but also up both banks of the Bravo, so that the limits of 
his colony touched Coahuila on the west, near the villa of Laredo, 
and Texas on the north, with the Nueces as the accepted boundary 
line, ofiicially established by a royal cedula of 1805. By extending 
his conquests into the Apache country, although by no means en- 
tirely subduing the Indians, together with the founding of the set- 
tlements mentioned above, he had effectually deprived Nuevo I^eon 
of territory bordering on the Eio Grande, and had made one less 
neighbor for Texas on the southwest. 

The remaining years of Spanish domination brought no special 
changes in the boundaries of Texas, the documentary evidence of 
this period simply confirming the limits already roughly laid down. 
A. letter of 1762 thus describes them: "This vast province of 
Texas is found at a distance of three hundred and sixty leagues, 
more or less, from the City of Mexico, on a line drawn to the north- 
northeast; it borders on the south the colony of the Mexican Gulf, 
although there remains on this and other boundaries much unin- 
habited land. On the west-southwest [it borders] the province of 
Coahuila; on the west-northwest, Sonora [Chihuahua?]; on the 

^Prieto, 188. 

-Ibid., 189. This report is found in Seccion de Historia, 55, Archivo 
General, City of Mexico. 



92 Texa8 Historical Association Quarterly. 

northwest, Nuevo Mexico. On the north it is not foimd to have 
other confines than those of the many barbarous nations."^ 

In 1767 and 1768 Pr. Gaspar Jose de Solis made a visita to the 
missions of the province of Texas. In the course of his travels 
along the Eio Grande he had occasion to send some Indians who 
were without instruction in the holy faith to the curate of the villa 
of Laredo. On the following day he arrived at the hacienda Do- 
lores of Don Joseph Borrego, on the bank of the Eio del Norte, 
which hacienda "belongs to the government of Nuevo Santander of 
the Mexican Gulf."^ At the time of a later visit to the Eio Grande, 
the same year, 1768, he speaks of Laredo as a "foundation of Col- 
onel Don Joseph Escandon, belonging to the government of Nuevo 
Santander." 

The Breve Cofnpendio of Bonilla is justly regarded as one of the 
best authorities upon the early history of Texas. In this work the 
Medina is represented as the place where the government of Coa- 
huila ends and that of Texas begins. The length of the latter 
province is given as about two hundred and forty leagues and its 
width as eighty.^ 

Another important work for early Texas history is Morfi's Me- 
morias para la Historia de Tejas. In this the extent and boundaries 
of the province are thus given: 

"It is distant from Mexico about three hundred and sixty leagues, 
more or less, to the north-northeast. On the south it begins at the 
bay of Espiritu Santo, which is, with little variation, in 33 degrees 
north latitude, and extends to the north as far as the town 
of San Teodoro de los Taovayas, occupying a bpace of more than 
two hundred and fifty leagues from north to south. It has the same 
or a little greater extent from east to west, from the river Medina, 
which separates it from Coahuila as far as the abandoned presidio 
de los Adaes, where it joins Louisiana. It is bounded on the south 
by the gulf of Mexico; on the east by Louisiana and English col- 
onies ; on the north, north-northwest, and northwest by jSTuevo Mex- 
ico and unexplored lands ; and on the west by the provinces of Coa- 

^Carta de Fr. Francisco Xavier Ortiz, 1762, Mcinorias de Nueva Espaila, 
162 vta. 

^See his Diario, Historia, 27 253 and vta,., also 295. 

^Breve Compendio, Par. 1, Historia, 27 1 and vta. 



The SoutTiwest Boundary of Texas. 93 

hiuila, Nuevo Eeino de Leon, and [the] colony of Santander."^ In 
speaking of the rivers, Morfi says, "The river Medina, the dividing 
boundary between the provinces of Coahuila and Texas, has its 
source in the same direction. * * * j^ runs, twenty-sev«n leagues 
and unites with the San Antonio."- 

Father Morfi had gathered the material for his work upon Texas 
in the course of a tour of inspection in company with the command- 
ing general of the recently created Provincias Internas. In the 
course of their journey, they cross the various rivers forming the 
boundaries of Texas, and he thus describes them: 

"The river de las Nueces rises in the canyon of San Saba, runs 
north and south, with some inclination to the east, until it is united 
with the Frio river, in whose company it empties into the Mexican 
Gulf, about one hundred leagues from the mouth of the Eio Grande 
and twenty from that of the San Antonio, and scarcely touching 
the colony of Nuevo Santander. It forms the dividing line of that 
province and that of Texas. * * * The founding of a settlement 
upon the banks of this river, in the most suitable place, would be a 
matter of great importance, equally for the correspondence of the 
provinces of Texas and Coahuila, situated as it is midway between 
them, as well as for impeding the Lipan and Comanche Indians 
from the free entrance which this desert country of eighty leagues 
offers them, to Nuevo Eeino de Leon and the colony of Santander, 
where they have already committed various outrages."^ 

The language of the above extract is rather ambiguous in one 
respect. In speaking of a new settlement on the Nueces does the 
worthy friar imply that he considered the Nueces a better bound- 
ary for Coahuila and Texas than the Medma, then recognized as 
such ? At any rate he joins in with the others in giving the Medina 
as the boundary in the following words: 

^Bk. I, Par. 2. This work has never been published. 

-Ibid. The mistake of the worthy Father in saying that Xuevo Leon 
touched the western boundary of Texas is a natural one for a traveler 
to make in considering the relative position of these provinces as viewed 
from the South. It has already been explained why Nuevo Leon did not 
extend to the Texas border. 

'Morfi, Viaje de Indios y Diario del Nuevo Mexico, 452, in Documentos 
para la Historia de Mexico, 2nd series, vol. I. 



94 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

"At half-past one we arrived at the river of Medina, the divis- 
ional line of the provinces of Coahuila and Texas/'^ 

The comandante general of the Provineias Internas, the Cabal- 
lero de Croix, thus expresses liimself concerning the Nueces bound- 
ary: 

"The presidio of Bahia del Espiritu Santo with the mission of 
the game name, and that of Eosario constitute the second jurisdic- 
tion of this province [Texas], which is found upon the coast of the 
Mexican Gulf [extending] from the mouth of the river Nueces, 
which separates it from the colony of Nuevo Santander."^ 

As both of these provinces were in the jurisdiction of the com- 
andante, he could have no motive for extending or retrenching the 
boundaries of either. His testimony, therefore, would be even 
stronger than that of Father Morfi and other writers wholly un- 
connected with the provinces. 

In 1787 there came a report from an expedition sent to explore 
the coasts of Nuevo Santander. It recommended the establishment 
of a post at the mouth of the Eio Grande, for the encouragement of 
the settlement of that region. It mentions the fact that the expedi- 
tion had visited Camargo, Laredo, and other towns in the colony of 
Nuevo Santander.^ The correspondent remits a map to the viceroy, 
but unfortunately this map, as is generally the case with those 
drawn to illustrate Spanish documents, does not, at the present 
time, accompany the report. 

With so much external evidence concerning the boundaries of the 
province, it would be strange if none could be produced from within 
Texas itself. However, even this is not lacking. In 1770, the 
cahildo and residents of San Fernando (the nucleus of the modern 
San Antonio) made a representation of their grievous situation to 
Governor Eipperda, in which appears the following statement : 

"This province is composed of nine missions and four presidios 
* * * whose jurisdiction starts from the river of Medina, which 

^Morfi, Viaje de Indios y Diario del Nuevo Mexico, 457. 

^Report of de Croix, Chiliuahua, September 23, 1778, in Expedicnte 
Sohre Comercio, Historia 43, Archive General. 

'El Conde de la Sierra Gorda to Viceroy Flores, June 19, 1787, Historia 
43, Archivo General. 



The Southwest Boundary of Texas. 95 

divides it from that of Coahuila, and runs more than two hundred 
leagues to the east, to the Adaes/'^ 

Later in the same document the statement is made concerning the 
uselessness of a new villa, not far from San Saba and San Javier, 
and under the dominion of Coahuila. 

Seven years later Governor Eipperda, in writing to de Croix 
about certain Indians speaks of them as inhabiting "other islands 
[extending] as far as the mouth of the Eio Grande del Norte in 
the colony of Nuevo Santander."^ 

Having in view this mass of testimony from the inhabitants of 
the province, and from its civil, military, and ecclesiastical author- 
ities, one wonders at the statement of Bancroft^ that Morfi is un- 
supported in giving the Medina as the boundary of Texas and Coa^ 
huila. If the friar is mistaken, he certainly errs with a goodly 
company. Bancroft further says that it is hard to determine why 
the Medina, rather than the Nueces or Hondo, is imiformly spoken 
of as the boundary of Texas. As we have already seen, it certainly 
is so mentioned, and uniformly, too, by every writer who speaks of 
the subject. And when we consider the Spanish method of begin- 
ning a new province with a natural boundary near its first settle- 
ment, it is not strange that the Medina and Nueces were thus 
selected for Texas; especially since, when thus restricted, it com- 
prised more territory than any of its neighbors. It is true, in the 
early days, that the settlements of Coahuila and Nuevo Santander 
clung to the Eio Grande valley, while those of Texas remained 
above the Nueces and Medina, leaving the intervening space to the 
Lipans and Apaches. Thus there was little need for fixed bound- 
aries, and yet these are always expressed in tolerably certain terms. 
By the close of the century, however, the prospect of clashing land 
grants bestirred the Spanish authorities to a more accurate delimi- 
tation of the three territories involved. By a royal cSdula of 1805, 
"the western boundary of Texas began at the mouth of the Eio 
Nueces, thence up that river to its junction with Moros creek, 
thence in a northeasterly direction to near the Garza crossing of the 
Medina river, thence up that river to its source, thence in a direct 

^RepresentaciSn to RipperdS,, July 7, 1770, Historia 28, Archivo Gen- 
eral. 

"Ripperda to de Croix, April 27, 1777. Historia 28, Archivo General. 

^North American States and Texas, I 604. 



96 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

line to the source of the San Saba river, thence northwesterly to 
the intersection of the 103rd meridian of west longitude and the 
32nd parallel of north latitude, thence northeasterly to the inter- 
section of the Eed Kiver by the 100th meridian, thence down said 
river.'"^ 

In more carefully delimiting the western boundary of Texas, the 
Spanish authorities at Madrid were but following the general lim- 
its that had been recognized for nearly a century. Our old friends, 
the Medina and the Nueces are still much in evidence. A map by 
Humboldt, appearing about the same time and following the same 
general lines, was later used in the compromise of 1850. 

By the transfer of Louisiana to the United States in 1803, a new 
factor was introduced into the solution of Texas boundary ques- 
tions, and one destined seriously to change the royal utterance of 
1805. The United States immediately set up the claim that Texas 
belonged to Louisiana — a claim, it is said, inspired by the wish of 
Jefferson to extend our frontier to include the site of La Salle's 
colony, "the cradle of Louisiana.'^^ But, whatever may have been 
the source of the claim, it certainly was untenable, for it utterly 
ignored the Spanish right by virtue of the occupation of Texas 
from 1715 to 1762 — a thing not done by the French, from whom 
we bought the territory. At any rate, Mr. J. Q. Adams, our sec- 
retary of state, was glad- to resign vague claims to Texap in return 
for a more substantial title to the lands of Florida. What had been 
the subject of fruitless claim, the United States later tried to ob- 
tain by purchase from Mexico. Adams, when president, sent Poin- 
sett with instructions to obtain as much of Texas as possible, by 
proposing a series of boundaries of which the Eio Grande was the 
most westerly, thus passing greatly beyond the old limits of the 
province of Texas. ^ His efforts, however, were unavailing. Jack- 
son sent by the United States charge d'affaires, Butler, an offer of 
an extra half million, if the boundary were extended to the Pacific* 
His labor was equally fruitless. The Mexican authorities were too 

*The Quarterly, I 14. 

^JeflFerson to M. Bowdoin, July 10, 1806. Quoted in Mexique et le 
Texas. 

^Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, 1828-.'f6, 553- 
554. Bancroft, Mexico, V 322. 

*Von Hoist, ibid., 566. 



The Southwest Boundary of Texas. 97 

proud to sell and too well versed in their own rights, derived from 
the Spanish occupation of the territory in question, to acknowledge 
the vague claims of the United States, based only on La Salle's 
luckless voyage. The claim of the United States, however, had suc- 
ceeded in one great purpose, and that was in creating the impres- 
sion amongst our own citizens that in the cession of our claims to 
Texas, we gave up something to which we were justly entitled. 
Certain public men gave utterance to this opinion, and their belief 
has survived even to our day. The proud persistence of the Mexi- 
can government in refusing any reasonable proposition for the pur- 
chase of this territory, tended to increase the intensity of this feel- 
ing. 

While diplomacy, backed by untenable claims and boundless re- 
sources, was attempting its unfruitful task, a movement was taking 
shape that promised to result in a more definite and permanent 
solution of the whole question. It was the coming into Texas of 
the Anglo-American pioneers — the same stock that had crossed the 
Alleghanies, conquered the Northwest Territory, and made inevita- 
ble the sale of Louisiana -^ the United States. Flushed with these 
successes, they came to add, on the plains of southwest Texas, an- 
other chapter to the history of their romantic achievements. 

In 1821 Mexico became an independent power, of which, under 
the Constitution of 1824, first Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Texas, 
and then Coahuila and Texas alone formed a single State. In this 
dual state the department of Bexar was to include the territory of 
the former province of Texas.^ The union of these provinces was 
a return to the historic connection that had existed between them 
previous to 1725, and was doubtless designed to neutralize the 
effects of the Anglo-American immigration, then beginning to make 
itself felt. Very likely it was thought that Coahuila, as the older 
and stronger of the two, would lead her sister province through the 
various processes of Spanish-American development into complete 
Mexican statehood. But in the department of Bexar there was now 
an element that strongly objected to leading of any sort, unless it 
were itself in the saddle, and facing toward the American Union. 

For the most part there are but few references to boundary ques- 
tions during the years from 1821 to 1836, but these uniformly fol- 
low the lines laid down during the previous century. In 1824 a 

'Constitution of Coahuila and Texas, Art. 7. 



98 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

proclamation concerning some stolen goods is issued for the infor- 
mation of the inhabitants of Laredo and other places belonging to 
the State of Tamaulipas (Nuevo Santander)/ The authorities of 
Bexar grant land and acknowledge sales on the Cibolo, the Atascosa, 
and the Medina; but there is no record of such transactions being 
legalized beyond the ISTueces." The alcabala records of the same 
period, and even up to the eve of the Texas Revolution, contain the 
names of residents of Laredo, in the State of Tamaulipas, who pay 
duties on goods introduced by them into the city of San Fernando.^ 
These few extracts will serve to show that the Mexican inhabitants 
of Bexar still recognized the claims of Tamaulipas to territory as 
far as the Nueces. Bustamente* says that few Anglo-American set- 
tlers did the same during this period. As a matter of fact none of 
their earlier gTants, nor either of the departments largely settled by 
them, extended far enough to the west to make them interested in 
the matter. 

In 1834 Colonel Juan N. Almonte was commissioned by Santa 
Anna to visit Texas and to report upon its readiness for statehood. 
In the description of his journey to Texas, he has occasion to say 
that "the most disagreeable part of the journey is the space that 
intervenes between the Rio Grande and Bexar," still an unsettled 
wilderness — the roaming ground of the Lipans and Apaches — as 
had been reported a century before. But long ere another century 
should pass a far different report of this region could be given. 
Almonte's utterance upon the boundary of Texas is interesting: 
'^'Notwithstanding that up to the present it has been believed that 
the river of Nueces is the dividing line between Coahuila and 
Texas, for so it appears on the maps, I am informed by the govern- 
ment of the State, that in this an error has been committed by the 
geographers, and that the true boundary ought to commence at the 

^Proclamation of Gasper Flores, first alcalde of San Fernando, Septem- 
ber 20, 1824. It should be noted that since the independence of Mexico 
several of the new States have dropped the names formerly imposed by 
their Spanish conquerors. 

=Bexar Archives. Petition of Francisco Eicardo, July 30, 1833 and 
alcabala records for 1833 and 1834. 

'Bexar Archives. Entries for Jos§ Basilio Benavides, September 24, 
1834;Gregorio Garcia, January 13, 1835; Lorenzo Benavides, March 31, 
1835. 

*El Nuevo Bernal Diaz del Castillo, I 11. 



The Southwest Boundary of Texas. 99 

mouth of the Aransas and follow it up to its source; and from 
there, it ought to continue in a straight line, until it meets with the 
river Medina, where it is joined to the San Antonio; following 
then by the eastern margin of the same Medina as far as its source, 
it ought to terminate in the boundaries of Chihuahua."^ 

A point to note with reference to the above boundary, is that the 
information upon which it is based is obtained from the authorities 
of the State. At that time it was well known that Texas was anx- 
ious for separate statehood, and no Mexican authorities would be 
likely to extend her limits more widely than was absolutely neces- 
sary. Still it is well to observe that the boundary, as reported by 
Almonte, does not differ materially from that laid down in the 
royal cedula of 1805 and in other sources quoted. 

During this period the attention of foreign writers is turned 
toward Texas, and a few make mention of its boundaries. Arthur 
Berfcrand^ speaks of the ISTueces as forming a part of the western 
boundary of Texas and of separating it from Coahuila. A French 
writer reviewing Mary Austin Holley's Observations quotes from 
that author the fact that Texas is bounded "on the west, by the 
river Nueces, which separates it from Tamaulipas and from Coa- 
huila."'^ These excerpts, as well as the report of Almonte, seem 
to indicate that the Medina was gradually losing, at least in the 
popular mind, its distinction as the boundary line between Texas 
and Coahuila. The Nueces was beginning to serve as the north- 
east limit for both Tamaulipas and Coahuila. Later, in their con- 
tention with the American government, the Mexican authorities 
claimed only to this river. 

From this time on the march of events is rapid. The early days 
of 1836 behold the declaration of independence by the Texans, the 
massacres of the Alamo and of Goliad, and the battle of San Ja- 
cinto. The Texan settlers had exercised the Anglo-Saxon privilege 
of revolting, and with an unusual measure of success. The victori- 
ous leaders took advantage of the presence of so important a cap- 

^Docmnentos Para la Historia de Mejico, 4th series, V 22. When one 
remembers that, at that time, Chihuahua extended far to the east of the 
Rio Grande, there is nothing peculiar in the terminus of the above bound- 
ary. 

-Bulletin de la Society de Geographie, vol. 8, Paris, 1827. Printed in 
Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, 1st series, vol. I. 

'Ibid., 1833, in Documentos, etc., 2nd series, vol. VI. 



100 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

tive as Santa Anna to exact conditions regarding tlie western 
boundary of Texas. The Mexican troops were to retire to the other 
side of the Eio Grande, beyond which the Texans agreed not to ex- 
tend their western limit. ^ On the 19th of the next December, the 
Texas legislature, at its first session, passed the following act: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Eepresentatives of the 
Eepublic of Texas in Congress assembled, That from and after the 
passing of this act, the civil and political jurisdiction of the Eepub- 
lic be, and is hereby, declared to extend to the following bound- 
aries, towit : Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river, and run- 
ning west along the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, to the 
mouth of the Eio Grande, thence up the principal stream of said 
river to its source, thence due north to the 42nd degree of IST. lati- 
tude, thence along the boundary line as defined in the treaty be- 
tween the United States and Spain," etc.^ 

Thus within a few short months the documentary testimony of 
more than a century was cast aside, and Texans made the first 
definite claim to territory bordering on the Eio Grande. In the 
conflict between stubborn adherence to authorities of the past and 
the manifest tendency of the present, the former had begun to give 
way. Within the limits given above were included portions of four 
Mexican provinces to which Texas did not have the shadow of a 
claim, for Santa Anna had promptly repudiated his agreement with 
Burnet, as soon as set at liberty, while the Mexican government 
had never recognized it. The Texans might, with as great a show 
of justice, have extended their boundary much further to the south 
and west, as they did after the ill-fated Santa Fe expedition. For 
the present, however, they contented themselves with claiming all 
the territory as far as the river that offered the best line of demark- 
ation for all this vast region. 

During the nine years that followed neither side did much to 
make good its claim to the disputed strip of territory. There were 
border raids back and forth, such as the Santa Fe and Mier expedi- 
tions and the Mexican occupation of San Antonio in the winter of 
1842-43. But these served only to continue the question as an open 

^Agreement between Santa Anna and President D. G. Burnet, Art. 3rd; 
also secret treaty of same date, May 14, 1836. 

-Act approved by President Houston December 19, 1836. Kennedy, 
Texas, I 10. 



Tlie Southwest Boundary of Texas 101 

one. During the decade the only Texas settlement across the Nue- 
ces was "a little ranch, inhabited by Mr. Kyney and Mr. Aubri," 
who acted as double spies for both Texans and Mexicans. The ter- 
ritory between the Nueces "neither by act nor by right could be 
included in Texas."^ However, a French writer of this period, 
Frederic Le Clerc, gives the boundaries of Texas as laid down by 
the Texan Congress, and severely criticises Mexico for stubbornly 
refusing to recognize the young Eepublic. He also criticises 
sharply the colonization methods of the United States and its mod- 
est assumption that its citizens are but the chosen instruments of 
Providence in the settlement of this boundary dispute and the 
other questions involved.^ 

The manifest destiny of Texas was speedy union with the United 
States, and this event was consummated in 1845. The title of 
Texas to the territory that she claimed had been identified with her 
independence and when the United States had recognized this, it 
must recognize her title also.^ This fact had caused much bitter 
feeling on the part of Mexico towards the United States, which, 
upon the annexation of Texas, culminated in the severance of dip- 
lomatic relations between the two countries. War, however, can 
hardly be said to have commenced at that time. Some radical act 
of aggression must first be committed by one party towards the 
other, and that act the administration of Mr. Polk speedily com- 
mitted. While any portion of Texas territory was in dispute good 
diplomacy, as well as international courtesy, should have prevented 
the sending of any troops into the portion in question. The Mexi- 
ican point of view upon this question seems very strong. The occu- 
pation of the disputed territory by the troops of General Taylor 
can only be explained by recurring to the idea that Texas owned 
the territory as far as the Eio Grande. This opinion was founded 
upon two distinct beginnings; one, the declaration of the Texas 
Congress in December, 1836; and the other, the contention that the 

^Bustamente, El Nuevo Bernal Diaz del Castillo, I 11. 

^LeClere, Le Texas et sa Revolution, 9, 26, 50. Reprinted from Revue 
de Deux Mondes in Mexique et le Texas. Kennedy (18) takes a much 
stronger view in saying, "But these vague authorities [Mrs. Holley and 
Almonte] are now obsolete with regard to the limits of Texas, which no 
longer politically united to Mexico, has claimed for itself new, more 
ample, and more natural boundaries." 

'Bancroft, Meanco, V 325. 



102 Texas Historical Association Quarterly. 

Rio Grande was the original limit of Louisiana. The first, as an 
argument, was ridiculous, and the second untenable. Neither Texas 
nor Louisiana extended to the Rio Grande, as was evidenced by the 
undisputed documentary evidence of more than a century.^ More- 
over, compare the conditions on the Texas border with those on the 
Canadian border a few years previous. Would not Great Britain 
have regarded the introduction of troops by the United States into 
the disputed region on the Maine border, while the boundary was 
still unsettled, as a deliberate act of war and have taken measures 
accordingly ?" 

Surely, with so much of documentary evidence on their side, the 
Mexican writers hafve had ample justification for the above com- 
plaints. The territ/ory was still in dispute and the United States 
should still longer have refrained from any hostile movement, such 
as its occupation by troops. Surely, with even a smaller favor than 
that afforded during the intervention of 1867, we could have ob- 
tained by purchase, from a grateful people, all the territory we now 
possess formerly belonging to Mexico. By the logic of events, how- 
ever, we were forced into an iinjust war, from which we were to 
emerge with a reputation for land-grabbing, destined seriously to 
interfere in all our subsequent relations with our Spanish-American 
neighbors. One would not willingly reverse the events of our liis- 
tory, still less would one wish to restore to Mexico the territory we 
then wrested from her; but this acquisition will remain in our his- 
tory one that we may well wish to have been otherwise made.^ 

By this sketch the author, relying upon such documentary au- 
thorities as he has at his disposal, has hoped to trace the beginning 
and development of the southwest boundary of Texas, largely from 
a Spanish and Mexican point of view. In this manner he has tried 
to add some new features of interest to an old and time-worn sub- 
ject. The problem of the boundary resulted in a contest between a 
weak power, relying upon documentary evidence, with a powerful 
neighbor engaged in blocking out its natural limits from ocean to 
ocean. Such a contest could have but one ending ; but it is no more 
than just to admit that from a documentary point of view, the logic 
of Mexico's position was irrefutable. 

^Guerra entre Mexico y los Estados Unidos, passim. 
^Bustamente: El Nuevo Bernal Diaz del Castillo, I 11. 
'See note 1, p. 81. — Editor Quarterly. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 432 926 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 432 926 



